From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EA4C433EF for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1359178AbiCYMvn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:51:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57078 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242879AbiCYMvl (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:51:41 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1F9865820; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 05:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD771210F1; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:50:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1648212604; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=A9k72q4nGxTZAjXFEZ3O4X+oiukJzFsmhEYIKREvjY4=; b=Orc9+Oa8vO07QT9vWpudH/xLJRCJV4ACZ1UzXBWsZ075CvmEEv9RklCIYYfU8tpcvGlSfs wQrd7Gr3sORgQ9cdVHZLTMTm7X/EehcTpc8lkeim5gbrdGP7E7qK/Aw61CuJ3rh48/eMjY lopuxx+qN2k8ovkkWyPfVAHjtYQMadg= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C50E3A3B82; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:49:59 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Zhaoyang Huang Cc: Chris Down , "zhaoyang.huang" , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , ke wang , "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" , LKML , cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: introduce proportional protection on memcg Message-ID: References: <1648113743-32622-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 25-03-22 11:08:00, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:02 AM Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:27 PM Chris Down wrote: > > > > > > I'm confused by the aims of this patch. We already have proportional reclaim > > > for memory.min and memory.low, and memory.high is already "proportional" by its > > > nature to drive memory back down behind the configured threshold. > > > > > > Could you please be more clear about what you're trying to achieve and in what > > > way the existing proportional reclaim mechanisms are insufficient for you? > > sorry for the bad formatting of previous reply, resend it in new format > > What I am trying to solve is that, the memcg's protection judgment[1] > is based on a set of fixed value on current design, while the real > scan and reclaim number[2] is based on the proportional min/low on the > real memory usage which you mentioned above. Fixed value setting has > some constraints as > 1. It is an experienced value based on observation, which could be inaccurate. > 2. working load is various from scenarios. > 3. fixed value from [1] could be against the dynamic cgroup_size in [2]. Could you elaborate some more about those points. I guess providing an example how you are using the new interface instead would be helpful. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs